Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 155, Issue 4, pp 785–795 | Cite as

Multiple foundation species shape benthic habitat islands

  • Eugeniy L. Yakovis
  • Anna V. Artemieva
  • Natalia N. Shunatova
  • Marina A. Varfolomeeva
Community Ecology - Original Paper

Abstract

Pattern generation by foundation species (FS) is a primary structuring agent in marine and terrestrial communities. Prior research, focused on single-species or guild-dominated habitats, stressed the role of facilitation in maintaining community structure. However, many habitats are developed by multiple FS from different guilds. Competition between these FS may provide an additional agent potentially responsible for spatial and temporal patterns. In the White Sea, epibenthic patches formed by barnacles (Balanus crenatus) and solitary ascidians (mainly Styela spp. and Molgula spp.) on small stones and empty bivalve shells (mainly Serripes groenlandicus) produce microhabitats for different sessile taxa. We hypothesized that: (1) several FS would provide habitats for most of other species in the community; (2) different FS promote different assemblages of sessile organisms; (3) the interplay of facilitation and competition best explains observed patterns of abundance and demography in FS; and (4) these interactions shape the whole community, increasing the diversity compared to less heterogeneous patches constituted by single FS. We examined 459 patches and the results generally supported this hypothesis. The number of FS in a patch positively affected species diversity. Most sessile species (72% of individuals) resided on barnacles, ascidians and red algae, except barnacles that dominated the primary substrate. The size structure of barnacles (live individuals and empty shells) and ascidians were interrelated, suggesting long-term patch dynamics whereby ascidians regularly replace barnacles. Following this replacement, we expect consequent changes to the entire dependent assemblage. Evidence for these changes exists in the spatial pattern: most sessile and motile taxa demonstrated significant associations with either FS. Our results indicate that the small-scale patterns observed in patches formed by multiple FS are primarily generated by facilitation of dependent taxa by FS, and facilitation and competition between different FS.

Keywords

Facilitation Competition Habitat Barnacles Ascidians 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank our colleagues Alexey Grishankov [St Petersburg State University (Spb)] and Michael Fokin (Zoological Institute RAN, SPb) for their collaboration and fruitful discussions. Some earlier ideas by Daniel Alexandrov (European University in SPb) contributed to our inspiration. We acknowledge numerous volunteers that shared the ups and downs of our field life. Technical support and accommodation was provided by the Biological Station of Moscow State University. Our special heartfelt thanks to Alexander and Nadezhda Cherenkovy. The success in our diving could only be achieved with the help of Dmitry Tomanovskiy and the Polar Institute for Fisheries and Oceanography. Thanks are due to Sergey Dobretsov (University of Kiel) for his assistance in data processing, to Judi Hewitt (NIWA, Hamilton, New Zealand), Alexey Koupriyanov (European University in SPb), Natalia Lenstman (SPb State University) and Mark C. Urban (Yale University) for discussion and linguistic corrections. We acknowledge Statsoft for a copy of STATISTICA software package granted to SPb State University. Tony Underwood (University of Sydney) and four anonymous reviewers made valuable comments on the earlier versions of the manuscript. Financial support was provided by RFBR (grant nos. 02-04-50020A, 05-04-48927A, 05-04-63041K, 06-04-63077K, 07-04-10075K), Universities of Russia program (grant no. UR-0701013), ISSEP (grant nos. s96-837 and s97-1711).

Supplementary material

442_2007_945_MOESM1_ESM.doc (86 kb)
(DOC 86 kb)

References

  1. Altieri AA, Silliman BR, Bertness MD (2007) Hierarchical organization via a facilitation cascade in intertidal cordgrass bed communities. Am Nat 169:195–206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armthworthy SL, MacDonald BA, Ward JE (2001) Feeding activity, absorption efficiency and suspension feeding processes in the ascidian, Halocynthia pyriformis (Stolidobranchia: Ascidiacea): responses to variations in diet quantity and quality. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 260:41–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Augusto L, Dupouey J-L, Ranger J (2003) Effects of tree species on understory vegetation and environmental conditions in temperate forests. Ann For Sci 60:823–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnes H (1959) Stomach contents and microfeeding of some common cirripeds. Can J Zool 37:231–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bates CR, DeWreede RE (2007) Do changes in seaweed biodiversity influence associated invertebrate epifauna? J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 344:206–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bertness MD, Callaway R (1994) Positive interactions in communities. Trends Ecol Evol 9:191–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bertness MD, Shumway SW (1993) Competition and facilitation in marsh plants. Am Nat 142:718–724CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Blanchard D, Bourget E (1999) Scales of coastal heterogeneity: influence on intertidal community structure. Mar Ecol Progr Ser 179:163–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boettcher SE, Kalisz PJ (1990) Single-tree influence on soil properties in the mountains of eastern Kentucky. Ecology 71:1365–1372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bram JB, Page HM, Dugan JE (2005) Spatial and temporal variability in early successional patterns of an invertebrate assemblage at an offshore oil platform. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 317:223–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bruno JF, Bertness MD (2000) Habitat modification and facilitation in benthic marine communities. In: Bertness MD, Gaines SD, Hay ME (eds) Marine community ecology. Sinauer, Sunderland, pp 201–218Google Scholar
  12. Butler AJ (1991) Effect of patch size on communities of sessile invertebrates in Gulf St. Vincent, South Australia. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 153:255–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Callaway RM, Walker LR (1997) Competition and facilitation: a synthetic approach to interactions in plant communities. Ecology 78:1958–1965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Callaway RM, Reinhart KO, Moore GW, Moore DJ, Pennings SC (2002) Epiphyte host preferences and host traits: mechanisms for species-specific interactions. Oecologia 132:221–230. doi: 10.1007/s00442-002-0943-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carlisle DB (1979) Feeding mechanisms in tunicates. Scientific series no. 103. Environment CanadaGoogle Scholar
  16. Chemello R, Milazzo M (2002) Effect of algal architecture on associated fauna: some evidence from phytal molluscs. Mar Biol 140:981–990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clarke KR (1993) Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Aust J Ecol 18:117–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clements FE (1916) Plant succession. Carnegie Institute publication 242. Carnegie Institute, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  19. Connell JH (1983) On the prevalence and relative importance of interspecific competition: evidence from field experiments. Am Nat 122:661–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Connell JH, Keough MJ (1985) Disturbance and patch dynamics of subtidal marine animals on hard substrata. In: White PS, Pickett STA (eds) The ecology of natural disturbance and patch dynamics. Academic, New York, pp 125–151Google Scholar
  21. Croizer CR, Boerner REJ (1984) Correlations of understory herb distribution patterns with microhabitats under different tree species in a mixed mesophytic forest. Oecologia 62:337–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dayton PK (1971) Competition, disturbance, and community organizations: the provision and subsequent utilization of space in a rocky intertidal community. Ecol Monogr 41:351–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dean TA (1981) Structural aspects of sessile invertebrates as organizing forces in an estuarine fouling community. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 53:163–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Donovan DA, Bingham BL, From M, Fleisch AF, Loomis ES (2003) Effects of barnacle encrustation on the swimming behaviour, energetics, morphometry, and drag coefficient of the scallop Chlamys hastata. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 83:813–819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Edgar GJ, Klumpp DW (2003) Consistencies over regional scales in assemblages of mobile epifauna associated with natural and artificial plants of different shape. Aquat Bot 75:275–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Enderlein P, Moorthi S, Röhrscheidt H, Wahl M (2003) Optimal foraging versus shared doom effects: interactive influence of mussel size and epibiosis on predator preference. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 292:231–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hatcher AM (1998) Epibenthic colonisation patterns on slabs of stabilised coal-waste in Poole Bay, UK. Hydrobiologia 367:153–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hewitt JE, Legendre P, Thrush SF, Cummings VJ, Norkko A (2002) Integrating results from different scales: a multi-resolution study of the relationships between Atrina zelandica and macrofauna along a physical gradient. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 239:115–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hinchey EK, Schaffner SC, Hoar CC, Vogt BW, Batte LP (2006) Responses of estuarine benthic invertebrates to sediment burial: the importance of mobility and adaptation. Hydrobiologia 556:85–98. doi: 10.1007/s10750-005-1029-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jones CG, Lawton JH, Shachak M (1994) Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos 69:373–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Khalaman VV (2001) Succession of fouling communities on an artificial substrate of a mussel culture in the White Sea. Russ J Mar Biol 27:345–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kruskal JB, Wish M (1978) Multidimensional scaling. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  33. Kukliński P, Barnes DKA (2005) Microhabitat diversity of Svalbard Bryozoa. J Nat Hist 39:539–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Laihonen P, Furman ER (1986) The site of settlement indicates commensalism between bluemussel and its epibiont. Oecologia 71:38–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marsh JA (1970) Primary productivity of reef-building calcareous red algae. Ecology 51:255–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Maughan BC (2001) The effects of sedimentation and light on recruitment and development of a temperate, subtidal, epifaunal community. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 256:59–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McCoy ED, Bell SS (1991) Habitat structure: the evolution and diversification of a complex topic. In: Bell SS, McCoy ED, Mushinsky HR (eds) Habitat structure: the physical arrangement of objects in space. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 3–27Google Scholar
  38. Menge BA, Sutherland JP (1987) Community regulation: variation in disturbance, competition, and predation in relation to environmental stress and recruitment. Am Nat 130:730–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mileikovsky SA (1970) Seasonal and daily dynamics in pelagic larvae of marine shelf bottom invertebrates in nearshore waters of Kandalaksha Bay (White Sea). Mar Biol 5:180–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. O’Connor NE, Crowe TP, McGrath D (2006) Effects of epibiotic algae on the survival, biomass and recruitment of mussels, Mytilus L. (Bivalvia: Mollusca). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 328:265–276. doi: 10.1016/j.jembe.2005.07.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Raffaele E, Veblen TT (1998) Facilitation by nurse shrubs of resprouting behavior in a post-fire shrubland in Northern Patagonia, Argentina. J Veg Sci 9:693–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Root RB (1967) The niche exploitation pattern of the blue-gray gnatcatcher. Ecol Monogr 37:317–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Saetre P, Saetre LS, Brandtberg P-O, Lundkvist H, Bengtsson J (1997) Ground vegetation composition and heterogeneity in pure Norway spruce and mixed Norway spruce–birch stands. Can J For Res 27:2034–2042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Scheu S, Albers D, Alphei J, Buryn R, Klages U, Migge S, Platner C, Salamon J-A (2003) The soil fauna community in pure and mixed stands of beech andspruce of different age: trophic structure and structuring forces. Oikos 101:225–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schmidt GH (1983) The hydroid Tubularia larynx causing “bloom” of the ascidians Ciona intestinalis and Ascidiella aspersa. Mar Ecol Progr Ser 12:103–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schoener TW (1983) Field experiments on interspecific competition. Am Nat 122:240–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Seed R, O’Connor RJ (1981) Community organization in marine algal epifaunas. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 12:49–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Siferd TD, Welch HE (1992) Identification of in situ Canadian Arctic bivalves using underwater photographs and diver observation. Polar Biol 12:673–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Simberloff D, Dayan T (1991) The guild concept and the structure of ecological communities. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 22:115–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sousa WP (1984) Intertidal mosaics: patch size, propagule availability and spatially variable patterns of succession. Ecology 65:1918–1935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Spetich MA, Shifley SR, Parker GR (1999) Regional distribution and dynamics of coarse woody debris in midwestern old-growth forests. For Sci 45:302–313Google Scholar
  52. Stachowicz JJ (2001) Mutualism, facilitation, and the structure of ecological communities. Bioscience 51:235–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ter Steege H, Cornelissen JHC (1989) Distribution and ecology of vascular epiphytes in lowland rainforest of Guyana. Biotropica 21:331–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tsuchiya M (2002) Faunal structures associated with patches of mussels on East Asian coasts. Helgol Mar Res 56:31–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Underwood AJ, Anderson MJ (1994) Seasonal and temporal aspects of recruitment and succession in an intertidal estuarine fouling assemblage. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 74:563–584Google Scholar
  56. Valiente-Banuet A, Bolongaro-Crevenna A, Briones O, Ezcurra E, Rosas M, Nunez H, Barnard G, Vazquez E (1991) Spatial relationships between cacti and nurse shrubs in a semi-arid environment inassociates. J Veg Sci 2:15–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wahl M (1989) Marine epibiosis. I. Fouling and antifouling: some basic aspects. Mar Ecol Progr Ser 58:175–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wahl M, Hay ME, Enderlein P (1997) Effects of epibiosis on consumer–prey interactions. Hydrobiologia 355:49–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Walters LJ, Wethey DS (1991) Settlement, refuges, and adult body form in colonial marine invertebrates: a field experiment. Biol Bull 180:112–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Watt AS (1947) Pattern and process in the plant community. J Ecol 35:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wilson JB (1999) Guilds, functional types and ecological groups. Oikos 86:507–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Yakovis EL (2007) Spatial structure of the aggregations formed by Balanus crenatus (Crustacea, Cirripedia) in the Onega Bay (the White Sea): distribution of sessile organisms (in Russian with English summary). Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Univ Ser 3 (Biol) 1:3–18Google Scholar
  63. Yakovis EL, Artemieva AV, Fokin MV (2004) Spatial pattern indicates an influence of barnacle and ascidian aggregations on the surrounding benthic assemblage. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 309:155–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Yakovis EL, Artemieva AV, Fokin MV, Grishankov AV, Shunatova NN (2005) Patches of barnacles and ascidians in soft bottoms: associated motile fauna in relation to the surrounding assemblage. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 327:210–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Young CM (1989) Larval depletion by ascidians has little effect on settlement of epifauna. Mar Biol 102:481–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Young CM, Cameron JL (1989) Differental predation by barnacles upon larvae of two bryozoans: spatial effects at small scales. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 128:283–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Young CM, Chia FS (1984) Microhabitat-associated variability in survival and growth of subtidal solitary ascidians during the first 21 days after settlement. Mar Biol 81:61–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eugeniy L. Yakovis
    • 1
    • 2
  • Anna V. Artemieva
    • 1
  • Natalia N. Shunatova
    • 1
  • Marina A. Varfolomeeva
    • 1
  1. 1.Invertebrate Zoology DepartmentSt Petersburg State UniversitySt PetersburgRussia
  2. 2.St PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations